Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.72 seconds)
Darshana Devi vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 21 September, 2010 cites

V. Ramana vs A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors on 5 September, 2005

8. The Courts and the Tribunals can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority, only when they are satisfied that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged and proved against a delinquent employee and not otherwise. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 338, wherein it is stated:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 226 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010

16. The appellate authority when exercised power, despite a finding of the Tribunal in OA-1042/2001, once the appellate authority independently without referring to this decision has quoted Rule 27 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and examined whether the procedure laid down under the Rules has been complied with or not and whether the finding of the DA is warranted by the evidence on record, recorded that the proper opportunity was given with supply of all documents and there is no infirmity or irregularity in the enquiry proceedings, which is not correct. As per the enquiry report available with us at Annexure A-9 and on a pointed query to the learned counsel of respondents whether the same is an authenticated copy of the report, an answer in the affirmative leads us to examine this, where in article-I of the charge as to willful insubordination and disobedience in performance of duties, the only act of the applicant was to shut the door when Lt. Col. came. There is no act of indiscipline and even in the allegation what amounts to insubordination has been described. Applicant was not held guilty of the charge on remaining absent and negligent on duty. However, the charge of abusing has not been clearly described as no exact abusive language has been incorporated as a charge. The finding recorded by the EO was without reasons, without dealing the contentions of the applicant, which, itself, is contrary to Rule 14 (23) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Such an abrupt finding, where the defence of applicant has not, at all, been considered, more particularly arrived at by the EO, who discharges quasi-judicial functions required in law to be a reasoned report, as held by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra, (2010) 2 SCC 772. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority. On proportionality of punishment the appellate authority recorded a finding and the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the charge, the penalty awarded is considered as adequate is not rested on any prudent reasoning. It would not be suffice to observe in a stereo-type manner as to how the penalty is adequate, for which proportionality is the sole prerogative of the authority, application of mind has to be shown from recording of reasons, which includes several factors involved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 718 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Sec.& Curator Victoria Memorial Hall vs Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors on 9 March, 2010

If these contentions, in the backdrop of the penalty, are not considered and no reasons have been recorded, more particularly dealing with the contentions of the concerned the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained, as ruled by the Apex Court in Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, (2010) 3 SCC 732. As an obligation what is obligated upon the appellate authority under Rule 27 (2) of the Rules is consideration, whether the penalty imposed is inadequate or severe, cannot be discharged only by recording provisions of the rules but further discussions are to be made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 308 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1